R.N. Misra, J. - (1.)PLAINTIFF has appealed against the reversing judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in a suit for recovery of money.
(2.)PLAINTIFF was a licensed dealer under the Orissa Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Levy Order). Under the Levy Order, Plaintiff was obliged to sell to the Union of India a part of his stock of rice. The Union Government had posted officers at various places to work out the scheme and supplies were being received at different rail -heads.
Plaintiff's supplies were (effected to officers working under the control of an Assistant Director (Food), posted at Khurda Road and the material supplies were effected on 4 -2 -1965, 25 -2 -1965, 9 -3 -1965 and 27 -4 -1965, the total value being about Rs. 41,500/ -. Payments for these supplies were effected between 16 -2 -1965 and 16 -8 -1965. Plaintiff, who happened to be a registered dealer under the Central Sales -tax Act, demanded Central sales -tax on the transaction. Thereupon, the Assistant Director (Food) instead of paying the sales -tax passed on to the Plaintiff two written under takings under Exts. 3 and 3/a to the effect that if the party was made liable to pay purchase or Sales -tax in accordance with the provisions of law in force at any future date, the President of India undertakes to reimburses the amount of tax to the party. Plaintiff refuted liability of sales -tax on these transactions before his assessing officer, but he overruled the objections and raised demands in 1967. Plaintiff was thus obliged to pay the amount and asked for recovery from the Union Government in terms of the two undertakings. When Plaintiff's demand was not accepted, after giving due notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff filed the suit on 15th of March, 1969.

In the suit, apart from the Union of India, one H.L. Khosla, who had given the undertakings under Ext. 3 series, was also impleaded as a Defendant. The Union of India took the stand that supplies effected under the Levy Order were not sales and, therefore, no sales -tax was exigible. It was the obligation of the Plaintiff to dispute his liability to be assessed and he should not have acquiesced to the demand. It was next contended that the undertakings did not bind the Government of India, inasmuch as the second Defendant had no authority to act on behalf of the President and, therefore, there was no compliance of Article 299(1) of the Constitution. The suit claim was said to be barred by limitation.

The second Defendant in a separate written statement claimed that he had no authority as such to give the undertakings, but when the Plaintiff demanded such undertakings if sales -tax was not to be paid, he contacted the Joint Director and Deputy Director then posted at Cuttack and furnished such undertakings.

(3.)THE trial Court accepted the extent of supply of rice as pleaded by the Plaintiff; found Defendant No. 2 to be duly authorised to act on behalf of the Union Government and, therefore, the undertakings were binding on the Government of India; he exonerated the second Defendant from personal liability; found a part of the claim to have become barred by limitation and decreed the suit for Rs. 840.76.